Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download

Comparison Overview

Squid HTTP Proxy projectSquid HTTP Proxy project
VS
SwisscomSwisscom
Squid HTTP Proxy project

Squid HTTP Proxy project

US

Last Update: 22/06/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
http://www.squid-cache.org
780/1000Fair

Squid is a caching proxy for the Web supporting HTTP, HTTPS, FTP, and more. It reduces bandwidth and improves response times by caching and reusing frequently-requested web pages. Squid has extensive access controls and makes a great server accelerator. It runs on most ...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:1
Subsidiaries:0
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
1
Swisscom

Swisscom

Alte Tiefenaustrasse 6, Worblaufen, 3048, CH

Last Update: 07/10/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.swisscom.ch/
757/1000Fair

As No. 1, we inspire people in the connected world. With the latest technologies and innovations, together we have the opportunity to shape the future. To do this, we are and act trustworthy, committed and curious. Are you with us? Join us on this exciting journey and ...

NAICS:5415
NAICS Definition:Computer Systems Design and Related Services
Employees:15,556
Subsidiaries:10
12-month incidents
1
Known data breaches
2
Attack type number
1

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
Squid HTTP Proxy project

Squid HTTP Proxy project

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA
Swisscom

Swisscom

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)

Squid HTTP Proxy project has 31.97% fewer incidents than the average of same-industry companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incidents vs IT Services and IT Consulting Industry Avg (This Year)

Swisscom has 0.99% fewer incidents than the average of all companies with at least one recorded incident.

Incidents

Incident History - Squid HTTP Proxy project (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Squid HTTP Proxy project cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - Swisscom (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Swisscom cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
Squid HTTP Proxy project

Squid HTTP Proxy project

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
SQU1782148033
🔒 Incident : Vulnerability
SQU1782145878
Swisscom

Swisscom

Incidents
🔒 Incident : Breach
SWI1786128838
🔒 Incident : Breach
SWI11477622

FAQ

Between Squid HTTP Proxy project company and Swisscom company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between Squid HTTP Proxy project company and Swisscom company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between Squid HTTP Proxy project company and Swisscom company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between Squid HTTP Proxy project company and Swisscom company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between Squid HTTP Proxy project company and Swisscom company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between Squid HTTP Proxy project company and Swisscom company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between Squid HTTP Proxy project company and Swisscom company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between Squid HTTP Proxy project company and Swisscom company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between Squid HTTP Proxy project company and Swisscom company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between Squid HTTP Proxy project company and Swisscom company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between Squid HTTP Proxy project company and Swisscom company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between Squid HTTP Proxy project and Swisscom, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between Squid HTTP Proxy project and Swisscom, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - Squid HTTP Proxy project or Swisscom ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - Squid HTTP Proxy project or Swisscom ?
Between Squid HTTP Proxy project and Swisscom, which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between Squid HTTP Proxy project and Swisscom, which company complies with GDPR requirements ?

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-110873
SUMMARY

Heym from 0.0.55 before 0.0.121 contains a privilege escalation vulnerability that allows shared collaborators to overwrite a workflow's error_workflow_id because the field is missing from OWNER_ONLY_EXECUTION_FIELDS. Attackers can point the error workflow to their own workflow with an HTTP node, and when the parent workflow errors the owner's decrypted credentials are injected and exfiltrated.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
IMPACT SCORE
4.2
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-110872
SUMMARY

Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.10 contains a quadratic complexity denial of service vulnerability in the SMTP client reply parser in SMTPConnection._onData and isPartialResponse. A malicious SMTP server or on-path attacker can stream continuation lines without a completion line before authentication, blocking the Node.js event loop and exhausting memory.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.9)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.9
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.2
Complexity: HIGH
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.2
CVE-2026-110871
SUMMARY

Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.10 contains a denial of service vulnerability in MessageParser.parseHeaders that allows users to exhaust CPU through quadratic header unfolding. Attackers can supply large recipient lists or long headers that fold into tens of thousands of continuation lines, blocking the Node.js event loop during DKIM signing.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 7.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.8
CVE-2026-110870
SUMMARY

Nodemailer from 3.0.0 before 10.0.13 contains an improper input validation vulnerability in its address parser that fails to strip RFC 5322 comments inside angle-bracket addresses. Attackers can supply recipients like a display name with a parenthesized comment in the domain, so illegal characters reach envelope.to and RCPT TO, causing rejected delivery or parser interpretation conflicts that bypass domain allow-lists.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
CVSS4
Base Score: 6.9
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-110869
SUMMARY

Nodemailer 3.0.0 before 10.0.13 has a regular expression denial of service in SMTPConnection._actionEHLO, whose four AUTH mechanism detection regexes contain overlapping whitespace sub-patterns that backtrack quadratically. A malicious or man-in-the-middle SMTP server can reply to EHLO with 250-AUTH, a long whitespace run and a non-matching token, blocking the Node.js event loop for tens of seconds to hours before authentication.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-10-14
UPDATED
Date2026-10-14
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 7.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 7.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS4
Base Score: 8.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9